Madison, great post. I knew a little about your past but not all those details. I have more respect for you now (on top of the respect I already had for you). If everyone put that kind of effort into their lives America would no longer be fat and lazy. You are an inspiration to all of us.

On a side note: I'm confused about the topic of this thread. I think it's about 7 terrorists but I think it's been hijacked (pun intended).

Madison wrote: I got a job waiting tables at Red Lobster that cleared roughly $300 a week. Oh, and that job was 2 miles away, so I had to walk two miles to work, then run around on my feet all day waiting on people, and then walk the two miles home each night. Raman also became my best friend at that time (you know, the 10 cent noodles that make a meal?).

heh heh, I did Chi Chi's and was able to avoid ramen by living on chips and salsa and the largesse of the kitchen staff...

That's a good sob story. But it's got very little to do with the discussion.

I'm going to simplify this. Here are the things I believe:

1. If you work 40 hours a week every week all year, you should not live below the poverty line.

2. People can pull themselves up by their bootstraps right now via minimum wage. However, simple social laws tell us that the lower the incentive, the less likely people are to do so. If it gets a bit easier to pull yourself up by your bootstraps, more people will do so.

3. If you only made 300 bucks a week working at Red Lobster, you weren't a very good waiter. I've made more working at worse places.

4. In 1995, the minimum wage was 4.25. In 1997, they raised it to 5.15. That same 5.15 an hour is worth 4.23 in 1995's dollars. The last minimum wage increase has completely disappeared because of inflation.

4a. This is not a punishment for business owners - it's an adjustment. They are paying their workers less now than they paid 9 years ago.

5. In many states, you can make more money by going on welfare than you can by working 40 hours a week.

6. The skyrocketing costs of fuel is another factor. At a certain point, it will not make economic sense for a person to take a minimum wage job because of the costs involved.

7. When people are paid enough to support their families, they pay more taxes and buy more goods and services in the local economy, stimulating growth of neighborhood economies.

8. When people are paid enough to support their families, they no longer need to rely on public assistance in the form of housing subsidies, medical assistance, food stamps, and welfare. In effect, taxpayers are subsidizing employers who don't pay living wages.

9. The vast majority of economic research concludes that there is little or no disemployment effect associated with wage increases, and the benefits far outweigh any negative consequences.

10. I see no reason to make people starve for a year before we deem them worthy of making a living wage.

11. The fact that Congress has given themselves a "cost of living" increase every year for the past 9 but refuse to even vote on a "cost of living" increase for the American worker is shameful.

12. The best way of fixing the minimum wage is to simply tie it into the consumer price index/inflation.

That's a good sob story. But it's got very little to do with the discussion.

I'm going to simplify this. Here are the things I believe:

1. If you work 40 hours a week every week all year, you should not live below the poverty line.

Are you suggesting that everybody that makes minimum wage lives below the poverty line? If not, are you saying that if somebody is irresponsible with their money or chooses to have children that they can't afford that they should be rewarded by being given more money until they are over the poverty line? Even if they're working a job that a requires no skill, training or talent?

Why don't you just come out and say you're a Socialist?

I personally have no problem with minimum wage rising with inflation, but to make some blanket statement that anyone who works 40 hours a week shouldn't live below the poverty line completly removes personal responsibility from the equation.

What should the minimum wage be, anyway? What amount of money would satisfy your list of wants? You do realize, that if you got the amount you wanted that cost of goods would sky rocket and that the $30,000 a year you make wouldn't be enough? That YOU would be the one who ultimately suffers?

Absolutely Adequate wrote:11. The fact that Congress has given themselves a "cost of living" increase every year for the past 9 but refuse to even vote on a "cost of living" increase for the American worker is shameful.

That's a good sob story. But it's got very little to do with the discussion.

What sob story? You mentioned a friend of yours who hit rock bottom, I gave you a personal, firsthand experience of hitting bottom. Not a sob story in the least, just simple facts of how easy it is to crawl out from under the rock and better yourself in today's world. If you cannot handle the simple truth, maybe this discussion isn't for you.

AA wrote:I'm going to simplify this. Here are the things I believe:

1. If you work 40 hours a week every week all year, you should not live below the poverty line.

If that person doesn't care to improve their situation, why should we just give them a boost? Can't help those who don't want to help themselves.

AA wrote:2. People can pull themselves up by their bootstraps right now via minimum wage. However, simple social laws tell us that the lower the incentive, the less likely people are to do so. If it gets a bit easier to pull yourself up by your bootstraps, more people will do so.

So we have to make it easy because people are not motivated enough for them to better themselves on their own? Give me a break. If people don't care to do it themselves, then that's their problem.

AA wrote:3. If you only made 300 bucks a week working at Red Lobster, you weren't a very good waiter. I've made more working at worse places.

Really upset you that I called you out on a poor sig huh? Yet another personal attack based on something you know nothing about? I expect more out of you than this rubbish AA, and a tiny amount of common sense would have kept you from saying that.

However, I'm in a good mood and this is funny, so I'll answer it. Remember what my financial situation was when I got the job? Needless to say I wasn't living in a very good neighborhood. Now use a wee bit of common sense that you didn't use before and realize that in a poor neighborhood, people either choose not to tip well, or simply cannot afford to eat out (so they cannot tip well!), so you're not exactly going to get rich waiting tables in that type of area . Oh, and not to mention that the Red Lobster I worked at went out of business around a year after I left due to a lack of business. They were in the red for the prior 5 years (I only worked there for 2).

Guess I should have been getting rich waiting on poor people in a restaurant that couldn't even do enough business to survive.

Now can we drop the stupid, uninformed (even though it was staring you in the face), and childish attacks AA?

AA wrote:4. In 1995, the minimum wage was 4.25. In 1997, they raised it to 5.15. That same 5.15 an hour is worth 4.23 in 1995's dollars. The last minimum wage increase has completely disappeared because of inflation.

Again, someone making minimum wage in '97, is not making minimum wage now.

AA wrote:4a. This is not a punishment for business owners - it's an adjustment. They are paying their workers less now than they paid 9 years ago.

Never said it was a punishment for business owners, and who cares if labor has become cheaper? More people in the workforce than in '97, so of course some areas of work are going to see a salary cut. That's normal business right there. If all of a sudden ten million new certified computer technicians entered the workforce, salaries for that position would go down too. This isn't rocket science.

AA wrote:5. In many states, you can make more money by going on welfare than you can by working 40 hours a week.

Exactly why welfare needs to be cut. Quit giving people money, make them work for it, and to better themselves instead of hand holding those who choose not to better themselves.

AA wrote:6. The skyrocketing costs of fuel is another factor. At a certain point, it will not make economic sense for a person to take a minimum wage job because of the costs involved.

So they work closer to home, or move closer to their job. People do that all the time and isn't anything new.

AA wrote:7. When people are paid enough to support their families, they pay more taxes and buy more goods and services in the local economy, stimulating growth of neighborhood economies.

A two income household can and does support a family, and leaves plenty of room for both of the adults to better themselves and the economy in the process.

AA wrote:8. When people are paid enough to support their families, they no longer need to rely on public assistance in the form of housing subsidies, medical assistance, food stamps, and welfare. In effect, taxpayers are subsidizing employers who don't pay living wages.

Yet another example of how we give way too much away for no reason. Make people work for a living and this isn't a problem.

AA wrote:9. The vast majority of economic research concludes that there is little or no disemployment effect associated with wage increases, and the benefits far outweigh any negative consequences.

That's still no reason to just give away more money to those who refuse to improve themselves.

AA wrote:10. I see no reason to make people starve for a year before we deem them worthy of making a living wage.

We deem? What rock are you living under AA? We don't deem anything. They do. If they are worth more, they will make more. It's their choice to determine what they are worth, do what they need to in order to be worth more, and they hold all the cards in that. Grasp reality and see that.

AA wrote:11. The fact that Congress has given themselves a "cost of living" increase every year for the past 9 but refuse to even vote on a "cost of living" increase for the American worker is shameful.

Why should we screw the American worker AA? Say I'm a Wal-Mart greeter making minimum wage of $5.15 per hour. After a year, I earn a raise to $5.40. Now along comes the federal government who decides to raise the minimum wage to $5.40. Now anyone can do my job and make the same money that I worked a year in order to get? You just destroyed a year of work for a ton of people (4.8 million) according to your numbers. People who work for minimum wage (or close to it), get raises each and every single year. You seem to be missing that simple fact.

AA wrote:12. The best way of fixing the minimum wage is to simply tie it into the consumer price index/inflation.

Disagree. More harm than good comes from that, and you should already know that.

Can't say I'm surprised you've resorted to personal attacks since you've got zero basis to argue your sig on, so I'm all done with you. Your sig shows everyone that you're out of touch with reality, and trying to spin reality to stir a dumb discussion. You got your discussion, got proven that your sig is false and knowingly misleading, so there's nothing further to discuss. Have a nice day.

Yes doctor, I am sick.Sick of those who are spineless.Sick of those who feel self-entitled.Sick of those who are hypocrites.Yes doctor, an army is forming.Yes doctor, there will be a war.Yes doctor, there will be blood.....

5 wrote:I think health care coverage is much more a problem than wages. People can get by on wages...not comfortably but get by. If they get sick, they're screwed. Period.

This I agree with. The cost of health care, and health care insurance, is ridiculous. Finding a way to provide affordable health care for anyone with a job (and all children) is something I'd love to see happen.

Yes doctor, I am sick.Sick of those who are spineless.Sick of those who feel self-entitled.Sick of those who are hypocrites.Yes doctor, an army is forming.Yes doctor, there will be a war.Yes doctor, there will be blood.....

5 wrote:I think health care coverage is much more a problem than wages. People can get by on wages...not comfortably but get by. If they get sick, they're screwed. Period.

This I agree with. The cost of health care, and health care insurance, is ridiculous. Finding a way to provide affordable health care for anyone with a job (and all children) is something I'd love to see happen.

but the cost of health care is high b/c the state abdicates its responsibility to take care of people, shunting it off onto private industry in hospitals. Since the hospitals are statutorily obligated to treat patients regardless of their ability to pay, their only means of covering those costs is to jack up prices for insured patients and those for whom medical coverage can be had.

Similarly, privatizing medicare means that there is widespread non-payment of bills for those services which might be covered (at lowball medicare rates) so...if the hospital is getting paid less for the increasingly expensive medical services provided to the increasingly aging population, they have to bill everyone across the board more to make up the profits for the shareholders, as it were. Even though these can be 'non-profit' type of organization, I'm sure that the executives make sure that their raises keep up w/ the cost of living and all that...